My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01912
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 4:49:18 PM
Creation date
2/20/2024 4:37:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1912
Planning Files - Type
Zoning Text Amendment
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
a need to which the development contributes is Grupe v. <br />California Coastal Commission, 166 Cal. App. 3d 148 (19B5). <br />In this case, Grupe sought a new development permit for a <br />single family home adjoining beach property. The Commission <br />attached a condition requiring him to offer to dedicate a <br />public access easement along the beach fronting his <br />property. In fact, he wanted to build a large single family <br />home on a 15,250 square foot beach -front lot. He was given <br />the permit to build the home on approximately 5,000 square <br />feet as long as he dedicated a lateral easement for public <br />access and passive recreational uses along the shoreline. <br />The easement encompas.;ed approximately 8,000 to 10,000 <br />square feet or approximately two thirds of the total area of <br />his single parcel. Grupe's lot was just one of many lots <br />within a private "locked gate" residential community; none <br />of the other parcels or, either side of him along the beach <br />were burdened by a similar condition and it was unlikely <br />that such conditions could be imposed on those parcels in <br />the future. The easement in question was "lateral" and thus <br />ran along the coast, without providing "vertical" access to <br />the sea from public road. Grupe brought an action for <br />administrative mandamus (C.C.p. 1094.5) to seek <br />invalidation of the access condition on a variety of <br />grounds. He also brought an action for claim or damages for <br />violation of his federal constitutional rights under 42 <br />u.S.C. Section 1983. <br />The court of appeals upheld the lateral beach <br />access condition even though his project had not created the <br />need for access. The court went on to say that the <br />condition did not effect a taking of property for public use <br />without just compensation within the meaning of the U.S. <br />Constitution's Fifth Amendment since the condition had not <br />robbed the property owner of all reasonable use and economic <br />value of his property; also, the property owner received a <br />substantial benefit from the Commission's decision to allow <br />development of his property. Thus, the court held the <br />condition did not violate the federal constitution and <br />reversed the trial court's judgment for damages and <br />attorneys' fees under Section 19P-3. <br />This case is an excellent review of the law on <br />dedications and whether or not such a dedication amounts to <br />a taking. <br />Before going to the exact ruling on whether or not <br />exact condition was legal, the court reviewed the general <br />validity of all exactions. Grupe argued that the particular <br />exaction is valid only if it (1) related to needs to which <br />the development contributes, and (2) will directly or <br />indirectly benefit the development. The Attorney General on <br />behalf of the Commission vigorously maintained that there is <br />-10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.